Minnesota’s Merger Syndrome



Stakeholders’ emotional reactions to the merger during the transition stage are outlined in terms of various fears of loss. The political maneuvering by both men’s and women’s stakeholders to secure their status post-merger is discussed including gendered political processes involved in the search for a new athletic director.


Reactions Fear Search for the new AD Media influence Managing the search 


  1. Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society, 4, 139–158.Google Scholar
  2. Acker, J. (1999). Gender and organizations. In J. S. Chafetz (Ed.), The handbook of sociology and gender (pp. 177–194). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (2014). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal, national study—Thirty-five year update, 1977–2014.
  4. Allen, J. B., & Shaw, S. (2009). Women coaches’ perceptions of their sport organizations social environments: Supporting coaches’ psychological needs? Sport Psychologist, 23, 346–366.Google Scholar
  5. Alvesson, M., & Billing, Y. D. (1997). Understanding gender and organization. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Appelbaum, S. H., Gandell, J., Shapiro, B. T., Belisle, P., & Hoeven, E. (2000). Anatomy of a merger: Behaviour of organizational factors and processes throughout the pre-during-post-stages (part 2). Management Decision, 38(10), 674–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Appelbaum, S. H., Gandell, J., Yortis, H., Proper, S., & Jobin, F. (2000). Anatomy of a merger: Behavior of organizational factors and processes throughout the pre-during-post-stages (part 1). Management Decision, 38, 649–661.Google Scholar
  9. Ashcraft, K. L. (2009). Gender and diversity: Other ways to make a difference. In M. Alvesson, T. Bridgman, & H. Willmott (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of critical management studies (pp. 305–327). London, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  11. Brackin, D. (2002a, April 26). ‘U’, Yudof set broad criteria for AD search. Star Tribune, p. 6C.Google Scholar
  12. Brackin, D. (2002b, May 29). Choosing an athletic director: Will ‘U’ challenges scare off AD candidates? Star Tribune, p. 1C.Google Scholar
  13. Brackin, D. (2002c, April 12). Moe won’t be AD candidate for ‘U’ merged department. Star Tribune, p. 17C.Google Scholar
  14. Britton, D. M. (2003). At work in the iron cage. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Collins, G. (2005). The gendered nature of mergers. Gender, Work and Organization, 12, 270–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Davey, K. M. (2008). Women’s accounts of organizational politics as a gendering process. Work and Organization, 15, 650–671.Google Scholar
  18. Durrant, S. M. (1992). Title IX—Its power and its limitations. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 63, 60–64.Google Scholar
  19. Ely, R. J., & Meyerson, D. E. (2000). Theories of gender in organizations: A new approach to organizational analysis and change. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 22, 103–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fletcher, J. K. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay on gender, power, and transformational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 647–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goetz, A. (2001). Ongoing merger rumor sidelined now, but U sports debate persists. Retrieved from
  22. Hartman, S. (2002a, June 28). Livengood tops list for ‘U’ AD job. Star Tribune, p. 3C.Google Scholar
  23. Hartman, S. (2002b, May 31). AD candidate loses coaches. Star Tribune, p. 3C.Google Scholar
  24. Hartman, S. (2002c, June 16). Jottings. Star Tribune, p. 3C.Google Scholar
  25. Hartman, S. (2002d, June 27). Yudof involved in choice of athletic director. Star Tribune, p. 3C.Google Scholar
  26. Hawes, K. (2012, April 29). Minnesota merger leaves fewer with separate programs. The NCAA News. Retrieved from
  27. Helms, M. (2002, April 11). U announces athletics cuts. Retrieved from
  28. Hoffman, J. L. (2011). The old boys’ network: Women candidates and the athletic director search among NCAA Division I programs. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 5, 9–28.Google Scholar
  29. Hovden, J. (2000). “Heavyweight” men and younger women?: The gendering of selection processes in Norwegian sports organizations. Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 8, 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hubbard, N. (1999). Acquisition strategy and implementation. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Knights, D., & Kerfoot, D. (2004). Between representations and subjectivity: Gender binaries and the politics of organizational transformations. Gender, Work and Organization, 11, 430–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Knights, D., & McCabe, D. (1998). When ‘life is but a dream’: Obliterating politics through business process reengineering? Human Relations, 51, 761–799.Google Scholar
  33. Knights, D., & Surman, E. (Eds.). (2008). Gender and emotion. Gender, Work and Organization, 15(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  34. Kotter, J. (1985). Power and influence: Beyond formal authority. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  35. Marks, M. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1992). Managing the merger: Making it work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  36. Marks, M. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (2010). Joining forces: Making one plus one equal three in mergers, acquisitions, and alliances (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  37. Martin, J. (2001). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Millea, J. (2002, April 12). CUTS AT THE ‘U’: Women’s athletics loses part of identity; Merger creates some trepidation. Star Tribune, p. 17C.Google Scholar
  39. Morgan, G., & Spicer, A. (2009). Critical approaches to organizational change. In M. Alvesson, T. Bridgman, & H. Willmott (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of critical management studies (pp. 251–266). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mumby, D. K. (2001). Power and politics. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 585–623). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Pfeffer, J. (1989). A political perspective on careers: Interests, networks, and environments. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 380–397). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Richardson, R. (2002, June 11). Rancor hangs in air at U. Pioneer Press, p. 1D.Google Scholar
  43. Schmid, P. (2002, July 12). “Incredible integrity”: Incoming AD’s many fans say his honesty has helped him to be so effective. Star Tribune, p. 1C.Google Scholar
  44. Schweiger, D. M. (2002). M&A integration: A framework for executives and managers. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  45. Shaw, S. (2001). The construction of gender relations in sport organisations. Unpublished doctoral thesis, De Montfort University, Bedford.Google Scholar
  46. Shaw, S. (2006). Scratching the back of ‘Mr X’. Analyzing gendered social processes in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 510–534.Google Scholar
  47. Shaw, S., & Allen, J. B. (2009). The experiences of high performance women coaches: A case study of two regional sport organisations. Sport Management Review, 12, 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shaw, S., & Hoeber, L. (2003). ‘A strong man is direct and a direct woman is a bitch’: Analyzing discourses of masculinity and femininity and their impact on employment roles in sport organisations. Journal of Sport Management, 17, 347–376.Google Scholar
  49. Shelman, J. (2002, June 8). Schemmel has applied for AD job. Star Tribune, p. 3C.Google Scholar
  50. Shelton, D. E. (2000). Equally bad is not good: Allowing Title IX compliance by the elimination of men’s collegiate sports. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 35, 253–264.Google Scholar
  51. Smetanka, M. J. (2002, April 12). ‘U’ sports overhaul starts at the top. The Star Tribune, 1A.Google Scholar
  52. Staurowsky, E. J. (2002, February 10). The Title IX Commission’s flawed lineup. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
  53. Tienari, J. (2000). Gender segregation in the making of a merger. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 16, 111–144.Google Scholar
  54. Torres, K. (2002, April 13). University athletics: Regents cuts in sports. Pioneer Press, p. 1B.Google Scholar
  55. University of Minnesota Athletics Department. (2016). News. Kathleen Ridder. Retrieved from Scholar
  56. Wells, J. (2002, July 13). Maturi given the job of unifying. Pioneer Press, 1D.Google Scholar
  57. Worts, D., Fox, B., & McDonough, P. (2007). ‘Doing something meaningful’: Gender and public service during municipal government restructuring. Gender, Work and Organization, 14, 162–184.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Minnesota State UniversityMankatoUSA
  3. 3.University of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations